Case law

United States v. Billy L. Talley

164 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 1999

cases require a judicially compelled immunity grant. … This argument fails, because the district court clearly controls the mode of the presentation of evidence. See Fed. R.Evid. 611.

Karen Keir and Mary Keir, Individually, and as Next Friend and Mother of Karen Keir v. United States

853 F.2d 398 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 1988

has not waived immunity. … The government’s waiver of immunity is qualified by the exceptions contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 . Section 2680(a) contains what is commonly known as the discretionary function exception.

David Ermold v. Kim Davis

855 F.3d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 2, 2017

The complaint alleged a violation of Ermold’s and Moore’s clearly established right to marry each other under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 3-6 (Page ID #3-6). … immunity because Ermold and Moore had not pleaded a violation of a clearly established right.

C. S. Lenoir v. Porters Creek Watershed District

586 F.2d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 1978

In Phillips , the Tennessee Supreme Court indicated that a waiver of immunity must be clearly and precisely stated, relying upon the proscription of Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution providing that “[sjuits … Since no individuals are sued, we do not consider the many questions of absolute or qualified immunity of individual agents of the defendants. 9 .

Murray v. Board of Trustees

659 F.2d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 1981

While we accept as not clearly erroneous his finding that plaintiff failed to prove actual damages, the Supreme Court’s holdings in Carey v. … In addition, in considering judgments against the individual state defendants, the District Judge must (but apparently did not) grant such defendants the “qualified immunity” required by Scheuer v.

Stephen Koprowski v. Karen Baker

822 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 2016

The Supreme Court’s conclusion has become even more pertinent over time because the qualified-immunity doctrine has expanded to give more protection to government officers. … Finally, the official asserting absolute immunity has the burden of showing that immunity is justified for any particular function, and “[t]he presumption is that qualified immunity is sufficient to protect government officials

Munaco v. United States

522 F.3d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2008

Unfortunately for Munaco, the district court ruled correctly that it lacked jurisdiction because the United States is immune from suit. … Munaco says that the IRS informed him that if he conditioned or qualified the lien payment in any way, his title would not be clear and marketable.

Alison Taylor v. City of Saginaw

922 F.3d 328 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 2019

immunity defense. 1The City also argued that the search fell within the administrative search exception. … Court of City & Cty. of S.F., 387 U.S. 523, 528 2Because the district court found that the search did not amount to a Fourth Amendment violation, it did not address Hoskins’ qualified immunity defense.

In re: Donald Trump

874 F.3d 948 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

However, this petition comes to us under a well-established exception because the district court certified its order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b). … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 813 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (noting public policy mandates qualified immunity).

Misty Coleman v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs

130 F.4th 593 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 2025

These factors do not establish that a non-slippery shower floor qualifies as one of the “minimal  No. 24-3453 Coleman v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, et al. … And these Civil Rules permit courts to invoke an immunity defense at the pleading stage if a complaint’s allegations show the defendant’s entitlement to immunity. See Crawford v.

Lovelace v. O'hara

985 F.2d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 1993

The district court then considered and granted O'Hara's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. Mrs. Lovelace appeals the grant of summary judgment. … Our disposition of the case on this issue moots the appeal with regard to whether O'Hara was entitled to qualified immunity.

Susan Stemler v. City of Florence Bobby Joe Wince Thomas Dusing and John Dolan, William Chipman, Administrator of the Estate of Conni Black v. City of Florence Bobby Joe Wince Thomas Kenner John Dolan Ron Kenner, Boone County Sheriff Rob Reuthe and Chris Alsip

126 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 1997

Test for Qualified Immunity 30 We turn now to the merits of Black's claim against the individual officers. … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, this court asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged action. 32 Barton v.

C.S. v. Craig McCrumb

135 F.4th 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 2, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendant school officials argue that the case against them is precluded by the doctrine of qualified immunity because “no prior case law clearly established that restricting firearm imagery in … If the answer is yes, we proceed to determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id.

Tinsler v. Nafziger

22 F. App'x 600 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 10, 2001

They are also entitled to qualified immunity because the Tinslers simply have not established that these defendants knew or reasonably could have known that any of their actions would have violated any of the plaintiffs’ … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Expert Masonry, Inc. v. Boone County, Kentucky, Fiscal Court Don Salyers Masonry, Inc. Don Salyers John Doe 2

440 F.3d 336 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 8, 2006

As we have elaborated, *342 to establish a claim under section 1, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants contracted, combined or conspired among each other, that the combination or conspiracy produced adverse, anti-competitive … For that reason, the allegations in this case do not qualify for the exception cited above. 6 .

Lundstrum v. Lyng

954 F.2d 1142 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 7, 1991

To bring a tort action against the United States, the plaintiff must establish that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. United States v. … The alleged constitutional violation for which the plaintiff seeks redress was not clearly established under existing precedent at the time of the defendants' conduct. Anderson v.

United States v. Lawrence Orlando, Sr. (00-6312) and Tera M. Daniels (00-6409)

281 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2002

clearly erroneous. … We therefore conclude that the district court’s determination that the government established independent sources for the search warrant affidavit and the indictment was not clearly erroneous. C.

Y.A. v. Hamtramck Pub. Schs.

137 F.4th 862 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2025

Page 3 qualified teachers, and children left behind by the pandemic. Some are more unusual. Eight in ten students in Hamtramck are below grade level in English, Mathematics, and Social Studies. … Had Congress wished to work such a marked shift in the States’ internal governance through Title II, we could fairly expect it to speak just as clearly.

Curen Essex v. County of Livingston

518 F. App'x 351 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 2013

of clearly established law.’” … Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that a clearly established right has been violated and that the official’s conduct caused that violation. See id.

Davis v. City of Cincinnati

113 F. App'x 662 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 2004

The magistrate judge concluded that Officer Neeley was entitled to qualified immunity and that the City could not be held hable under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. … The magistrate judge properly concluded that Officer Neeley was entitled to qualified immunity because Officer Neeley’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier v.